Studies of antisocial and prosocial behavior have a history of several decades.
This chapter focuses on recent findings about the relationship between anti/
prosocial behavior and academic outcomes; variations in this relationship across major groups such as grade level, gender, and race/ethnicity; measures recently used; and directions where the research agenda is pointing.
Before describing the substantive findings, this section discusses the range of methodologies employed and the types of measures used among the 41 reviewed articles.
Methodologies Employed
Recent research into aggression, other antisocial behaviors, and prosocial behaviors often employs geographically restricted samples, includes aggression as a focus, utilizes multiple measurement techniques, and focuses on the relationship between aggression or prosocial behaviors and their antecedents rather than between social behavior and academic outcomes. Table 7-1 tabulates some of the characteristics of the reviewed studies.
A majority of the reviewed research (26 articles) used samples that were smaller than 500 children or students, and only three of the studies used a national-level sample that could be reasonably generalized to a broad swath of the US population. The national samples included one based on the US Department of Education’s National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (Marsh et al., 2001) and two others based on multiregional independent studies (Odom et al., 2006; Stormshak et al., 1999). The vast majority of studies (including the international studies) focused on samples that were drawn from specific cities, states, or regions, and were sometimes also restricted to specific populations, such as minorities. About half of the studies (22 articles) were longitudinal, whereas 17 were cross-sectional and 2 were experimental (involving the use of short time spans).
Table 7-1. Approaches to studies of antisocial and prosocial behavior Study approach
Count of Studies Using this approach At what grade level is the construct measured?
Preschool 4
Elementary school 15
Middle school 8
High school 4
Multiple 10
What is the study design?
Cross-sectional 19
Longitudinal 22
What is the method of analysis?
Case study 2
Bivariate 5
Multivariate 32
Multilevel 2
Is the sample generalizable?a
Sample of convenience (an existing intervention program) 1
Students identified as at-risk 1
Within school 6
Within district or region 32
Nationally representative 3
Can the study be replicated?
Data and survey are available 1
Questionnaire is available 34
No, neither data nor survey are available 6
a The first two rows in this category refer to characteristics that overlap with the last three categories (i.e., are not exclusive).
The large majority of articles (38 articles) included an examination of antisocial behavior or attitudes, regardless of whether prosocial behaviors or attitudes were included. Twenty-four studies focused exclusively on aggression or other antisocial tendencies, whereas 13 studies included both antisocial and prosocial behaviors or attitudes as part of their analysis. Three studies focused exclusively on prosocial behaviors.
Measures of Antisocial and Prosocial Behavior
Table 7-2 presents characteristics of the most common scales/questionnaires used in the reviewed studies, including instrument name, data sources, subscales, sources, and reported psychometric properties from given studies.
Table 7-2 also lists observational and experimental research protocols employed in the reviewed studies.
The majority of studies (34) used questionnaire-based methods (of students, teachers, or parents) to measure social behaviors. The remaining studies (7) used either experimental methods or observational protocols and tended to focus on preschool students. The experimental studies included two that used story-based scenarios: Thornberg (2006) used puppetry to elicit student
Table 7-2. Measures of antisocial and prosocial behavior: Key features
Measure Name Data Source
Subscales or Components
No. of Studies
Using this Measure
Intended
population example articles psychometric properties
Questionnaire Revised Class Play Instrument
Student (peers) Physical aggression, verbal aggression, prosocial cooperation/
helpfulness
3 Elementary to middle school
Becker & Luthar (2007); Burgess et al. (2006); Chen et al. (1997)
4 items on aggression/bullying reputation scale
Internal reliability (α): .88 (urban sample), .87 (suburban sample) (Source: Becker & Luthar, 2007)
Interpersonal Competence Scale
Teacher or student
Physical aggression, verbal aggression, cooperation, withdrawal, other noncognitive (e.g., social anxiety)
3 Elementary to middle school
Farmer et al. (2002); Lord
& Mahoney (2007); Ryan
& Shim (2008)
3 items on aggression subscale
Internal reliability (α): .88 (teacher reported), .73 (student reported)
Correlation among teacher ratings: .71, p < .05 (Source: Ryan & Shim, 2008)
Table 7-2. Measures of antisocial and prosocial behavior: Key features
Measure Name Data Source
Subscales or Components
No. of Studies
Using this Measure
Intended
population example articles psychometric properties
Questionnaire Revised Class Play Instrument
Student (peers) Physical aggression, verbal aggression, prosocial cooperation/
helpfulness
3 Elementary to middle school
Becker & Luthar (2007);
Burgess et al. (2006);
Chen et al. (1997)
4 items on aggression/bullying reputation scale
Internal reliability (α): .88 (urban sample), .87 (suburban sample) (Source: Becker & Luthar, 2007)
Interpersonal Competence Scale
Teacher or student
Physical aggression, verbal aggression, cooperation, withdrawal, other noncognitive (e.g., social anxiety)
3 Elementary to middle school
Farmer et al. (2002); Lord
& Mahoney (2007); Ryan
& Shim (2008)
3 items on aggression subscale
Internal reliability (α): .88 (teacher reported), .73 (student reported)
Correlation among teacher ratings: .71, p < .05 (Source: Ryan & Shim, 2008)
reactions to aggressive behavior, and Giles and Heyman (2005) used fictional stories to do the same. A third experimental study used a computer-based interactive program (involving fake peers) for identifying high school student responses to proposed aggressive and risky behaviors (Cohen & Prinstein, 2006). Studies using researcher observations included one using a preexisting structured observational protocol (Odom et al., 2006) and three using study- specific protocols with various time-sampling methods (Goldstein et al., 2001;
McComas et al., 2005; Pellegrini & Bartini, 2000).
However, a substantial proportion of studies used multiple sources or methods to measure student behavior. For example, one of the studies employing researcher observations also included standardized questionnaires (Pellegrini & Bartini, 2000); one of the questionnaire-based studies also used juvenile police and court records (Schaeffer et al., 2003). Among studies that were entirely questionnaire based, 12 used information from two or more of the following sources: the student, peers, teachers, or parents. Close to half of all studies used information from the teacher or information from peers (20 and 16 studies, respectively, nonexclusive with other sources). Ten studies used reports from the target students themselves (again, nonexclusive).
(continued)
Table 7-2. Measures of antisocial and prosocial behavior: Key features
Measure Name Data Source
Subscales or Components
No. of Studies
Using this Measure
Intended
population example articles psychometric properties
Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation–Revised Scale (TOCA-R)
Teacher Physical aggression, verbal aggression, prosocial cooperation/
helpfulness
2 Elementary school
Schaeffer et al. (2003); Stormshak et al. (1999)
10 items on authority acceptance scale
Internal reliability (α): .92 to .94, depending on grade
Test-retest intraclass reliability: .65 to .79, depending on grade pair (Source: Schaeffer et al., 2003)
Teacher-Child Rating Scale (T-CRS)
Teacher Acting out/
disruptive behavior, helpfulness, other noncognitive skills (e.g., self- concept)
2 Elementary school
Coley (1998); Morrison et al. (1998)
5 items on acting out subscale Internal reliability (α): .79 (Source: Morrison et al., 1998)
Safe Communities- Safe Schools Survey
Student (self), teacher
Physical aggression, relational aggression, victimization
2 Middle and high school
Brockenbrough et al. (2002); Wilson (2004)
2 to 7 items, depending on study
Internal reliability (α): Not reported in either study
Child Behavior Checklist and Youth Self-Report
Parent, child Aggression, anxiety, depression, hyperactivity, noncompliance, overcontrol, and undercontrol
2 Elementary to high school
Lansford et al. (2005); Morales & Guerra (2006)
Number of items not reported Internal reliability (α): .78 (teachers) (Source: Morales & Guerra, 2006)
Child Behavior Scale Teacher Aggression, prosocial behavior, asocial behavior, exclusion, hyperactivity, and anxiety
2 Elementary school
Ladd & Burgess (1999); Miles & Stipek (2006)
7 items on aggression subscale
Internal reliability (α): ≥ .88 across multiple time points (Source: Miles & Stipek, 2006)
Early School Behavioral Rating Scale
Teacher Social
competence, emotional problems, and behavioral problems
1 Elementary school
Hoglund & Leadbeater (2004)
9 items on behavioral problems subscale Internal reliability (α): .88
(Source: Hoglund & Leadbeater, 2004) (continued)
Table 7-2. Measures of antisocial and prosocial behavior: Key features
Measure Name Data Source
Subscales or Components
No. of Studies
Using this Measure
Intended
population example articles psychometric properties
Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation–Revised Scale (TOCA-R)
Teacher Physical aggression, verbal aggression, prosocial cooperation/
helpfulness
2 Elementary school
Schaeffer et al. (2003);
Stormshak et al. (1999)
10 items on authority acceptance scale
Internal reliability (α): .92 to .94, depending on grade
Test-retest intraclass reliability: .65 to .79, depending on grade pair (Source: Schaeffer et al., 2003)
Teacher-Child Rating Scale (T-CRS)
Teacher Acting out/
disruptive behavior, helpfulness, other noncognitive skills (e.g., self- concept)
2 Elementary school
Coley (1998); Morrison et al. (1998)
5 items on acting out subscale Internal reliability (α): .79 (Source: Morrison et al., 1998)
Safe Communities- Safe Schools Survey
Student (self), teacher
Physical aggression, relational aggression, victimization
2 Middle and high school
Brockenbrough et al.
(2002); Wilson (2004)
2 to 7 items, depending on study
Internal reliability (α): Not reported in either study
Child Behavior Checklist and Youth Self-Report
Parent, child Aggression, anxiety, depression, hyperactivity, noncompliance, overcontrol, and undercontrol
2 Elementary to high school
Lansford et al. (2005);
Morales & Guerra (2006)
Number of items not reported Internal reliability (α): .78 (teachers) (Source: Morales & Guerra, 2006)
Child Behavior Scale Teacher Aggression, prosocial behavior, asocial behavior, exclusion, hyperactivity, and anxiety
2 Elementary school
Ladd & Burgess (1999);
Miles & Stipek (2006)
7 items on aggression subscale
Internal reliability (α): ≥ .88 across multiple time points (Source: Miles & Stipek, 2006)
Early School Behavioral Rating Scale
Teacher Social
competence, emotional problems, and behavioral problems
1 Elementary school
Hoglund & Leadbeater (2004)
9 items on behavioral problems subscale Internal reliability (α): .88
(Source: Hoglund & Leadbeater, 2004)
(continued)
Table 7-2. Measures of antisocial and prosocial behavior: Key features
Measure Name Data Source
Subscales or Components
No. of Studies
Using this Measure
Intended
population example articles psychometric properties
Preschool Behavior Questionnaire
Teacher Social reward dependence (prosocial orientation)
1 Elementary school
Vitaro et al. (2005) 10 items on prosocial scale Internal reliability (α): .91 (Source: Vitaro et al., 2005)
Prosocial Goal Pursuit Questionnaire
Student (self) Academic behavior and social behavior
1 High school Barry & Wentzel (2006) Number of items not reported
Internal reliability (α): .75 (Source: Barry & Wentzel, 2006) Social Behavior
Questionnaire
Teacher Aggression-
disruptiveness, prosocial behavior
1 Elementary school
Veronneau et al. (2008) 13 items on aggression-disruptiveness scale Internal reliability (α): .93 (kindergarten), .92 (grade 4) Correlation over two grades: .47, p < .001
10 items on prosocial scale
Internal reliability (α): .92 (kindergarten), .91 (grade 4) Correlation over two grades: .23, p < .001
(Source: Veronneau et al., 2008) Observation
Code for Active Student Participation and Engagement (CASPER-II)
Researcher Social behavior (physical aggression, verbal aggression, and prosocial sharing)
1 Preschool Odom et al. (2006) Inter-rater reliability (κ): .79
Average inter-rater agreement: 94% (Source: Odom et al., 2006)
Study-specific: video- based coding
Researcher Physical aggression
1 Preschool Goldstein et al. (2001) Inter-rater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient): .75 (Source: Goldstein et al., 2001)
Study-specific: direct observation
Researcher Physical and verbal aggression, verbal prosocial behavior
2 Preschool, middle school
McComas et al. (2005); Pellegrini & Bartini (2000)
Average inter-rater agreement: aggression (98%), prosocial behavior (96%)
(Source: McComas et al., 2005)
experiment
Story-based scenarios and solicited responses
Student Physical aggression, social exclusion
2 Preschool, elementary school
Giles & Heyman (2005); Thornberg (2006)
Inter-rater reliability (κ): (solicited responses coded by observers):
Physical aggression (1.00), verbal aggression (.90), relational aggression (.93)
(Source: Giles & Heyman, 2005) Computer interactions
with faux peers
Student Physical aggression, verbal aggression, health risk behaviors
1 High school Cohen & Prinstein (2006) 9 items on study-specific aggression instrument
Internal reliability (α): .72 (Source: Cohen & Prinstein, 2006) (continued)
Table 7-2. Measures of antisocial and prosocial behavior: Key features
Measure Name Data Source
Subscales or Components
No. of Studies
Using this Measure
Intended
population example articles psychometric properties
Preschool Behavior Questionnaire
Teacher Social reward dependence (prosocial orientation)
1 Elementary school
Vitaro et al. (2005) 10 items on prosocial scale Internal reliability (α): .91 (Source: Vitaro et al., 2005)
Prosocial Goal Pursuit Questionnaire
Student (self) Academic behavior and social behavior
1 High school Barry & Wentzel (2006) Number of items not reported
Internal reliability (α): .75 (Source: Barry & Wentzel, 2006) Social Behavior
Questionnaire
Teacher Aggression-
disruptiveness, prosocial behavior
1 Elementary school
Veronneau et al. (2008) 13 items on aggression-disruptiveness scale Internal reliability (α): .93 (kindergarten), .92 (grade 4) Correlation over two grades: .47, p < .001
10 items on prosocial scale
Internal reliability (α): .92 (kindergarten), .91 (grade 4) Correlation over two grades: .23, p < .001
(Source: Veronneau et al., 2008) Observation
Code for Active Student Participation and Engagement (CASPER-II)
Researcher Social behavior (physical aggression, verbal aggression, and prosocial sharing)
1 Preschool Odom et al. (2006) Inter-rater reliability (κ): .79
Average inter-rater agreement: 94%
(Source: Odom et al., 2006)
Study-specific: video- based coding
Researcher Physical aggression
1 Preschool Goldstein et al. (2001) Inter-rater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient): .75 (Source: Goldstein et al., 2001)
Study-specific: direct observation
Researcher Physical and verbal aggression, verbal prosocial behavior
2 Preschool, middle school
McComas et al. (2005);
Pellegrini & Bartini (2000)
Average inter-rater agreement: aggression (98%), prosocial behavior (96%)
(Source: McComas et al., 2005)
experiment
Story-based scenarios and solicited responses
Student Physical aggression, social exclusion
2 Preschool, elementary school
Giles & Heyman (2005);
Thornberg (2006)
Inter-rater reliability (κ): (solicited responses coded by observers):
Physical aggression (1.00), verbal aggression (.90), relational aggression (.93)
(Source: Giles & Heyman, 2005) Computer interactions
with faux peers
Student Physical aggression, verbal aggression, health risk behaviors
1 High school Cohen & Prinstein (2006) 9 items on study-specific aggression instrument
Internal reliability (α): .72 (Source: Cohen & Prinstein, 2006)
The teacher and students questionnaires (and the rarer parent questionnaires) were typically drawn from existing batteries, particularly the Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation–Revised Scale or teacher ratings on the Interpersonal Competence Scale. For student self-ratings, scales included the Interpersonal Competence Scale, the Child Behavior Scale, the Child Behavior Checklist, the Social Behavior Questionnaire, and the Prosocial Goal Pursuit Questionnaire.
In terms of specific items, questionnaires ask about a number of individual acts. For physically oriented aggression, questionnaires ask about the
frequency of hitting, kicking, fighting, yelling, swearing, disrupting lessons, threatening, and stealing. For nonphysical aggression, studies ask about excluding others, spreading rumors, or abandoning plans with others.
Dismissive behaviors such as ignoring, hoarding, and refusing to help are also asked about directly. For prosocial behavior, questions ask about the frequency or likelihood of helpfulness, sharing, cooperation in scholastic or nonacademic tasks, and providing leadership.
Peer-nomination procedures were a unique methodology employed (compared with studies of other noncognitive skills), and nearly as common as teacher reports. In a peer-nomination procedure, students or classmates are provided with a roster of names and rate their peers on various aspects of behavior, how the respondent feels about the peer, and other perceptions about the target student. One of these instruments was the Revised Class Play Instrument (Masten et al., 1985), which provided students with a list of behavioral descriptors (such as “someone who gets mad” or “someone who spreads rumors”) and a roster of class names and then asked the students to nominate up to three students who could best play a role corresponding to that description in a hypothetical class play (Chen et al., 1997). This procedure serves as a nonthreatening and subtle way to solicit peer judgments, especially for elementary-aged children who may have difficulty thinking directly about the social behaviors typically exhibited by classmates. Peer nomination is also useful for generating rich data about the overall classroom climate related to antisocial and prosocial behavior and as perceived by students themselves (this perception often being a critical component of the purported influence of anti/
prosocial behaviors). Peer-nomination procedures are also easily extended to include measures of peer acceptance, peer admiration (i.e., popularity), friendships, and networks (see, e.g., Wentzel et al., 2004).
In sum, the measurement of antisocial and prosocial behaviors is generally straightforward and relatively direct, except for the use of peer-nomination procedures. The major issue for the measurement of antisocial behaviors has to do with visibility. Aggressive actions often take place away from parents, teachers, and other authorities (Hyman et al., 2006). Teacher reports, although widely used, may miss many aggressive actions because of this fact. Pellegrini and Bartini (2000), for example, noted that researcher observations and teacher reports had low correlations on some aggression measures with direct student or peer reports of the same group of students (Pellegrini and Bartini also noted problems with student diaries). Teacher reports may be most useful when the in-classroom environment and teacher-student interactions are key to the study. Researcher observations may be most useful in environments where all or nearly all social interactions can be captured or sampled (for example, in videotaping a preschool class both indoors and at playgrounds). However, self- report and peer-nomination procedures are likely valid for most research.
Substantive Focus and Findings
The variety of reviewed studies indicates a set of complex relationships among antisocial and prosocial behaviors; academic achievement and attainment; and other behaviors, attitudes, and social roles. Twenty-four studies examined anti/
prosocial behaviors as predictors of either educational outcomes or of other social factors, such as peer acceptance and victimization. An overlapping set of 25 studies examined anti/prosocial behaviors as outcomes of either educational success itself or of other social factors. As indicated, a number of studies (10) examined multiple relationships and causal pathways simultaneously—for example, the 10 studies that examined anti/prosocial behaviors as predictors of educational outcomes included 2 studies that also examined academic achievement itself as a predictor of anti/prosocial behavior and 4 studies that also examined anti/prosocial behaviors as a predictor of other social outcomes.
This coverage of interrelated issues illustrates the recognition that the study of antisocial and prosocial behaviors involves bidirectional relationships with academic and social experiences.
The focus of the studies examining anti/prosocial behavior as a predictor of educational outcomes was broadly distributed in examining achievement test scores, grades (from school transcripts), school completion, educational attainment, teacher-rated academic skills, and academic self-regulation.
Of the studies that included an examination of anti/prosocial behavior as outcomes, the predictors included academic variables, such as achievement,
communication skills, and grade retention; and other noncognitive skills, such as neighborhood stressors, social goals, parental supervision, religious involvement, and initial aggressive actions.
Because of the variety of studies reviewed and the extent of overlap among them, the discussion below is organized by behavior (antisocial and prosocial), with each section discussing the behavior’s role as a predictor or an outcome with respect to educational outcomes and other social outcomes.
Antisocial Behaviors. We found that in 33 of the 38 studies involving antisocial measures, antisocial behavior had negative associations with academic achievement; social behaviors; or family, school, or classroom/
teacher experiences (whether antisocial behavior was deemed a predictor, outcome itself, or correlated in an indeterminate way). Two studies showed no associations between antisocial behavior and other experiences or characteristics (Gest et al., 2005; Wentzel & Caldwell, 1997), and another three studies showed positive relationships between antisocial behavior and positive characteristics or experiences—in the latter case, this usually involved a relationship between aggression and popularity (discussed further below).
The small number of studies (10) that directly addressed the relationship between antisocial behaviors and achievement or attainment as an outcome makes consistent conclusions difficult, although the majority (7) reported expected negative relationships between antisocial behavior and academic outcomes. The best studies were longitudinal and suggested that the
relationship between antisocial behavior and educational outcomes was more complicated than a straightforward causal impact of behavior on achievement or attainment.
For example, Chen and colleagues (1997) found that aggressive and disruptive behavior in 4th grade predicted poor math achievement among 6th graders in China. Schwartz and colleagues (2006) found that aggression was strongly and negatively related to GPA and strongly and positively related to class absences over 2 years in high school, both directly and through enhanced popularity (aggression was associated with increased popularity, which in turn positively predicted class absences and negatively influenced grades). Dubow et al. (2006) found that, having followed 3rd graders from Columbia County, New York, for nearly 30 years, aggression at age 8 predicted educational status at age 30, which in turn affected occupational status at age 40. Likewise, another longitudinal study showed that high school completion was lower among students who were high aggressors-disruptors in elementary school